Summary: Mr X complains the Council conspired with the parish council and decided to install a non-statutory vehicle activated speed indicator device at a site which was not discussed or recommended by its own engineers or the police. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X disagrees with the site chosen for a new speed sign (SID) in his village. He says the Council is lying when it says the site outside his home was the parish council’s decision.
2. Mr X says the location chosen will fail to slow down traffic as it enters the village and will be an eyesore. He wants it placed in the originally proposed location which he says will be more effective.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. Mr commented on the draft version decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X lives in a village. The parish council proposed installing a SID to encourage traffic to slow down when passing through the village; three different locations were proposed for the device.
6. Mr X complains that a fourth alternative, location D, “appeared out of thin air” at a Parish Council meeting. And the Parish Council claimed the highways department at the Council advised that location D was the only option.
7. Mr X says the highways department claims location D was the Parish Council’s decision. So, either the Parish Council or Northamptonshire Council has lied to him about the reasons for choosing location D. He feels that if members of the Parish Council have lied, then they are unfit to hold any public office.
8. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirms the parish council suggested location D. It says officers met with three parish councillors on-site. During the meeting it was noted that location D is a better location because:
• it would pick up vehicles further into the 30mph restriction
• the sign can be rotated and can pick up vehicles travelling west if required

It says all those present agreed location D is the most suitable location for the SID.

9. After the meeting the findings were reported at a parish council meeting. The parish council voted to install the SID at location D. 
10. So, following a site meeting, it appears the Council and parish councillors agreed that location D is the most suitable site for a SID. However, the parish council made the final decision. As parish councils do not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, I cannot consider this matter any further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not and cannot investigate this complaint because:
• I have not seen any evidence the Council has lied to Mr X
• I do not consider he has suffered any personal injustice because of the actions of the Council
• We cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking i.e. relocation of the SID; and
• We cannot investigate complaints about the actions of a parish council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman